HL v UK 45508/99 (2004) ECHR 471: Difference between revisions
(New page: '''Informal' compliant incapacitated patient was deprived of his liberty, with lack of procedural safeguards or access to court, in breach of Art 5(1) and (4).'' (very rough summary) ==Ex...) |
m (→External links) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2004/471.html Bailii]] | [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2004/471.html Bailii]] | ||
Commonly known as Bournewood | |||
HL v United Kingdom [2004] 40 EHRR 761: HL lacked capacity to decide where he wanted to live as he suffered from severe autism and challenging behaviour. After many years in a psychiatric hospital he lived with carers for three years while at a day centre his behaviour deteriorated and he was informally admitted to hospital. He was denied contact with his carers for three months and the intention was to keep him in hospital because he was “compliant” it was asserted that he was not deprived of his liberty. The ECHR held that he was detained and had no recourse to the protections offered by the MHA 1983 (challenge detention and restrictions on treatment) hence his article 5 (1) rights had been violated. | |||
{{caselaw-stub}} | {{caselaw-stub}} | ||
Revision as of 07:17, 13 April 2008
'Informal' compliant incapacitated patient was deprived of his liberty, with lack of procedural safeguards or access to court, in breach of Art 5(1) and (4). (very rough summary)
External links
Bailii] Commonly known as Bournewood
HL v United Kingdom [2004] 40 EHRR 761: HL lacked capacity to decide where he wanted to live as he suffered from severe autism and challenging behaviour. After many years in a psychiatric hospital he lived with carers for three years while at a day centre his behaviour deteriorated and he was informally admitted to hospital. He was denied contact with his carers for three months and the intention was to keep him in hospital because he was “compliant” it was asserted that he was not deprived of his liberty. The ECHR held that he was detained and had no recourse to the protections offered by the MHA 1983 (challenge detention and restrictions on treatment) hence his article 5 (1) rights had been violated.